Ukraine Situation — Expert Alert!
Why political “expertise” is mostly nonsense
Ukraine. A country of 43 million people, located in an uncomfortable position between Russia and Europe. Not a great spot. Poland can tell you all about it. It has been a week since the start of the conflict in Ukraine and the last few days, the so-called experts on Ukraine, Russia, and the Soviet Union; military and security experts have proliferated on all media channels.
This is the first time I write anything that remotely touches upon a politically charged topic and yet, I’ll try to walk this tightrope while making a point that is not political.
Here is the simple advice: instead of the analysis that leads to a prediction of what is likely to happen, focus on the specific events. Granted, establishing what is true and what is propaganda is going to be very difficult, but that is a topic for another day.
I remember going through this exact experience a few times before, most notably in 2011, when the war in Syria started. At the time, I happened to be living in Damascus, a city that in 2009–2010 was the crown jewel of the Middle East with no signs of what was to come. Very tolerant society, kind people, great food, improving economy, it seemed like things were only going to go uphill from there.
We all know what happened next. Soon as the Syrian conflict started spiraling out of control, we had the phenomenon of “mushrooming experts” offering their vision of why it all happened, what Syria and Syrians, as well as every other player on the Syrian chessboard, had to do, and so on. Little did it matter that almost every prediction they were making along the way was turning out to be wrong. But the unfazed experts had a post-factum explanation for everything and would promptly follow with another prediction. Wrong again. Explanation provided. More predictions.
And yet, there was barely anyone who could predict even the start of the Syrian conflict just a few weeks earlier. We, humans, tend to forget that we are not very good at predicting things in general. Paradoxically, we are even less competent when we think we are experts on the subject matter. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb put it, more knowledge does not make us objectively better at predicting, it simply increases our confidence in our predictions, which, in high-stakes situations can be very dangerous.
Churchill famously said that a politician needs to have the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterward to explain why it did not happen. These days, even politicians do not sound as confident and self-assured as pundits. And yet, when you actually measure, so to speak, the accuracy of their forecasts, they are suspect at best. Brexit, Trump presidency, I don’t know, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the experts did not see any of these coming.
Fair enough, you might say. The unexpected happens. But this time it is different. We all saw this coming. For weeks, everyone has been talking about the possibility of a Russian invasion. Fair enough, indeed. But that does not make it any easier to predict where this is all going.
Here is the thing. Nobody knows. What we typically have in such situations, is a mosaic of a wide range of players acting out their plans, only to discover that their plans do not mean much after the very first step they implement. Once they make the first step, everyone else adjusts and the plan, therefore, has to change. As every player tries to influence the outcome, all they do is render the plans of all the other parties useless. Too many players. Too many variables. The only situation in which one player is likely to control the outcome is if one has overwhelming power. But then again, we saw what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, or the USA in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Can we identify what the pundits get wrong? Let’s give it a try.
Firstly, oversimplification. For example, experts speak of Ukraine as a European country and create an image of a monolithic and uniform community. I happened to be in Kyiv as recently as December 2021. Definitely a European city — we don’t even have to go into detail as to what that means exactly. But is all of Ukraine similarly European? I am not making a value judgment or seeking to undermine the dominant narrative of what Ukraine is like. Just pointing out that a country of almost 45 million is too vast, too complex to put into a box — European or otherwise.
Secondly, trying to find clear causes and effects as to why what happens happens. Preferably, just one. We see one cause embellished at the expense of all the others. It is all because Ukraine was trying to join NATO. Or Putin has simply lost his mind. But events of this magnitude do not just happen because of one reason. Any single issue can be addressed, but a multiplicity of factors becomes hard to control or influence.
Third, devising a narrative and then trying to force the evidence to fit the narrative. Every time an event fits the narrative, the experts attribute it to their skill of prediction, while for every event that does not, they blame the randomness, forgetting that it may all just be randomness.
Fourth, looking at the past for signs of what is to come. The past is important to analyze and understand, but it does not give us a clear reason to predict that things would or would not be a certain way. For example, because Russian forces invaded Ukraine, experts point at the 2008 Georgia conflict and say, we could see this coming. Then again, had Russia not invaded Ukraine, the experts would promptly drop the Georgia conflict from their narrative.
Fifth, and the most blatant one — post-factum explanations. Any explanation that surfaces after something takes place, littered with “obviously”, “as expected”, and “predictably” is just hot air unless you show me the evidence that this exact explanation was provided before the events ran their course.
Now, back to Ukraine. Where is this all going? It would be silly of me to make a prediction after everything you’ve just read. Any analysis should factor in the West-Russia relationship, Russia’s general intentions to construct a defensible perimeter on its western borders, the issue of water supply to Crimea, Ukraine’s newly discovered potential as an energy-producing country, its impact on meeting Europe’s energy needs, Russia’s desire to remain the main provider of natural gas to Europe, and so on. However, does factoring in all this make the predictions any better? Absolutely not.
The more complex the phenomenon we are looking into, the more likely it is for things to go wrong. Unfortunately, this does not bode well for Ukraine.
The only thing perhaps we can say with confidence is that with every day of the conflict, the likelihood of it lasting a very long time increases, which would be devastating for Ukraine. Let me say it again. Too many players. Too many variables.
So next time you hear a “political expert” or “economics expert” who claims to have predicted something, regarding Ukraine or any other complex political or socio-economic issue, exercise one of two choices.
The first choice — engage. Ask for the evidence of them having presented their views pre-event, then compare the prediction to what transpired. If they did get it right, well done, but look for more examples of such accuracy more than once, with other events. One successful prediction means nothing, it could just be sheer luck. Orwell said that our predictions tend to be correct only when reality just happens to coincide with our wishful thinking.
The second choice — avoid eye contact. Do not engage. Run.
The world is complicated. We should all (including the experts) remind ourselves how little we understand the world around us, how little impact we actually have, and how badly we misread situations, especially when we have false confidence about them.
